21 June 2009 9:53 AM

The Eurosceptics are just as phoney as President Blair

This is Peter Hitchens' Mail on Sunday column

Any day now you could wake up and find that you are subject to the rule of President-of-Europe Anthony Blair.

After the Irish and the Czechs have been clubbed into submission this autumn, the long-planned European Superstate will at last come into being. And Mr Blair is likely to be its Head of State. For those of a sensitive disposition, this means two horrible things happening at once.

It is bad enough that the ghastly Blair creature might rise from the political tomb, hands clasped in pious prayer, upper lip trembling with fake emotion, pockets crammed with money from the lecture circuit, drivel streaming from his mouth. That would perhaps be the only thing that might make the nation warm to Gordon Brown again.

But far worse is the awful truth, which so many have hidden from themselves, that Britain will from that moment cease to be an independent nation in any important way.

The EU will take on a ‘legal personality’ of its own, become a nation in its own right, one in which we are a subject province for the first time in more than a thousand years, less independent than Texas is of Washington DC.

And this is why I hate the people in politics and the media who call themselves ‘Eurosceptics’. What are they for? What good have they done? They stand about, mainly in the Unconservative Party, claiming to be concerned about the way the EU is swallowing this country.

But they refuse to take the one step that would actually make a difference. They will not call for this country to leave the EU. You will have to ask them why not. There is no reason Britain could not exist outside the EU, which sells more to us than it buys from us, drags us into trade disputes with the USA which are not in our interest, steals our fish, chokes our small business, mucks up our farms and milks us each year of incalculably large sums of money we could spend better ourselves.

There is every reason for us to go our own way, especially if we wish to preserve our unique laws and liberties against the fast-approaching ‘Stockholm Programme’ which aims to impose continental law on this country, together with a menacing set of surveillance powers quite beyond the control of our Parliament.

So the next time a ‘Eurosceptic’ presents himself to you for election, ask him why he won’t go the extra yard (not metre), and if he won’t do so, find a man who can. The time for scepticism is long past. What is there left to have doubts about? The thing is as bad as we feared. The time for secession has arrived.

**************************************

Tearing down another safety net

Why would the Government be so keen to repeal a law which protects free speech? You decide. Here are the details. Last year, in a law called The Criminal Justice and Immigration Act, New Labour created a new criminal offence, called ‘incitement to hatred on grounds of sexual orientation’.

I will not argue here about whether such a law is necessary or right. My point is different. What is important is that several Peers were concerned that such a law might one day be misused to prosecute the expression of opinion.

They rightly did not trust assurances that such a law could never be used for such purposes. They had noticed the increasing tendency of the police to menace individuals for voicing unfashionable opinions about homosexuality.

So they fought to insert a clause saying ‘for the avoidance of doubt, the discussion or criticism of sexual conduct or practices or the urging of persons to refrain from or modify such conduct or practices shall not be taken of itself to be threatening or intended to stir up hatred’.

Government spokesmen claimed this was not necessary.

Maybe they’re right. Maybe they’re wrong. Who can tell the future? That’s the whole point, and wise law-makers know that laws are often used in ways never intended by those who drafted and passed them. But what harm can such a safeguard possibly do? None, obviously.

Yet, probably this Tuesday, the liberal State will mobilise its forces in the House of Lords to rip away this sensible safety net. If it succeeds, I predict that the result will be the persecution of Christians and others who wish to resist the sexual revolution.

**************************************

Let Britain's branch lines run again

Are we at last beginning to grasp that the massacre of the railways by Dr Richard Beeching was a grave mistake?

Train companies are talking of reopening dozens of abandoned lines and stations, and about time too. Why not reopen the lot? Scores of medium-sized towns - absurdly - have no railway link.

The countryside is closed to those without cars. Millions of tons of freight clog the roads, which in the USA would certainly travel by rail. Road-building has failed.

As the M25 shows, the more you build, the more jammed they get. Railways were invented in this country because they suited our landscape. They still do. Whether you believe the global-warming panic merchants and the predictions that oil will run out, or whether you do not, there has never been a better time to bring back trains.

**************************************

Who will join the judge and speak against divorce?

The single biggest disaster of the Sixties was the introduction of easy divorce - a liberation for adults, paid for by the misery of millions of children ever since.

I am glad to hear Mr Justice Coleridge, who sees the results in family courts, condemning the ‘endless game of “musical relationships” - or “pass the partner” - in which such a significant portion of the population is engaged, in the endless and futile quest for a perfect relationship which will be attained, it is supposed, by landing on the right chair or unwrapping a new and more exciting parcel’.

But when will any politician have the nerve to admit that the Divorce Reform Act of 1969 was a grave error, and that marriage needs to be strengthened again?

The subject is almost undebatable. As Judge Coleridge has pointed out, the BBC plan to screen a powerful documentary series on family breakdown in the middle of the night so that hardly anyone will see it, preferring to keep prime time for violence, swearing and moral slurry.

**************************************

Final notes...

The weird religion of football softens the brain. The Iranian protests against the ayatollahs are without doubt the most significant events in the world today. Crucial, you might say. Yet when a group of Iranian footballers chose to don green armbands to show their support for the protesters, the BBC reported, in radio news bulletins, that they did this before a ‘crucial’ soccer match. That’s right. The game was ‘crucial’. The struggle for the future of a great country was unworthy of any adjective.

Who needs an inquiry into the Iraq War? It’s over. Nobody will be brought to justice. Isn’t it time Parliament debated our dubious involvement in Afghanistan, and sought to end it?

I am pleased to report that the powerful, gruelling film Katyn, about the Communist murder of the Polish officer corps, has at last been released in British cinemas. If it is showing near you, I recommend you make the effort to see it.

Comments

You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Posted by: Wesley Crosland 22 June 2009 at 07:12 PM.

Well since the dawn of mankind men have traded 'essential services'. If you wanted food or clothing which you couldn't produce yourself you bartered something of value in exchange and later paid for it with money. I would suggest that someone who claimed that others should pay for his 'essential service' would have got very short shrift indeed.

What's essential about railways anyway - nothing! Why should I subsidise someone who lives in say, Chobham, to travel to London everyday, there's no reason I can think of, if he chooses to live in Chobham and work in London let him pay his own fare. Why should I make Richard Branson richer as he pockets the subsidies and spends nothing on improving the track. Just the other day our beloved Prime minister was saying that broadband was an 'essential service, and we'll all have to pay for it - well not all of us, of course, only those who work for a living.

Once you start this rubbish, there's no stopping it: if you haven't got two television sets you're below the poverty line and somebody else must pay, if you can't afford a holiday on the Costa Del Sol every year, if you work in the public sector you can have an inflation proof final salary at the expense of the taxpayer and you don't even have to turn up for work that often.

There's no end to your philanthropy at someone else's expense is there Mr Crosland? Enjoy it whilst it lasts which can't be too much longer.

Forgot to mention your Narnia experience. No I don't recall you mentioning it, very interesting indeed. I used to find the story quite charming when I was younger and still do, although I really didn't like the actors who played the children in the latest films. No charm or charisma and I found myself supporting the White Witch (played by a very attractive actress).

To be honest, I sometimes think that might be a nice idea- to walk inside a wardrobe and enter a beautiful winter wonderland, then meet a very attractive lady who calls herself the Queen of Narnia, and who then offers you some tasty chocolates...I'm actually warming to the idea...

Had I been one of the children I think I might have betrayed them....

Vikki: Thanks for posting the words to Rule Britannia, I always love hearing it played although I sometimes think it misleads people into still thinking we are a free country. I find it incredible how it is so obvious that we don't run our own country and yet many people either haven't realised this or (worse) don't care..

Glad you liked the exam. I thought it might be of interest and must admit, I am interested to read what people make of it. I had trouble with it myself, especially the history part, which shows how cut off from our roots we have become I think...

Just as an afterthought, there is a great difference between
a) What the enthusiasts for the “European Project” would LIKE (a European superstate, no doubt about it, and let’s be devoutly thankful they haven’t achieved it, and are unlikely to in any realistic future scenario);
b) What they SAY they have achieved in terms of power over member states. This is always grossly exaggerated by the EU in order to puff itself up and make itself look bigger and more impressive than it really is. The illusion is strengthened because member states collaborate with it, enabling them to avoid responsibility for many unpopular actions they carry out; and;
c) What IN FACT the EU is and can do, which is something altogether weaker and more limited.

It is very important; crucial in fact, not to confuse the three. In effect, the EU and its powers are one of the great con tricks of modern times, because the reality is NOTHING like the appearance.

As for “UK Patriotism”, I see the best way of looking after that is by ensuring that our industry has customers and the country is reasonably prosperous, so we can afford things like schools and the NHS and so forth, all of which add up to a fairly civilised way of life. If we left the EU, it would become a lot harder to trade in the European market, because EU policies are designed to make it difficult for outsiders to trade there. If we left, and became outsiders, the damage to our economy would be considerable, and would far outweigh what we might save by no longer paying EU contributions. I don’t see anything patriotic in ending up like the legendary Spanish grandee who never took his cloak off, because despite his centuries-long noble heritage, he was so poor that he was clothed in rags beneath it.

Very true, and those words brought back memories of a distant past when, shortly after Suez and Russian tanks crushing the uprising in Hungary, and amidst the constant threat of being either frizzled to death by nuclear warfare or freezing to death on a Ban-The-Bomb march, I spent nearly two years sitting in a big hole in the ground somewhere in Germany.
We spent our time monitoring radar plots this side and that side of the iron curtain so that those who made such decisions could either sit and snooze or panic, according to what appeared on the map of northern Europe spread out before them.
Undoubtedly these were far more worrying times than the present concerns over matters Europeon, but one thing was certain: every Saturday afternoon in the season my head set would come alive with messages from our link station on the Suffolk coast - the football results!

The problem with this line of thinking is that it is entirely backward looking. Yes, the EU is still less important in some areas than national governments, and yes, ultimately it relies upon national police and courts to enforce its laws. But if you look at the progress the EU has made since the formation of the European Coal and Steel Community and how willing national leaders, civil servants and courts are to enforce EU law, I think it would take a brave - or optimistic - person to think that the integration process cannot go much further.

The EU will - unless checked - become ever more important.

Leaving the EU is no panacea, but it would be an important step in the right direction."

(Posted by: James H)

This is a completely rational objection to the EU, and a quite respectable position to take. There are three substantial reservations, however. Firstly, for the EU to move from its present powers to the sort of super-state its critics fear, national political elites would have to give up extremely substantial areas of power, far more than they show any signs of being prepared to do so far. Secondly, with 27 countries in the EU, the differences between the most developed and the least developed are now so great that the problem is developing any sort of coherent EU policies at all. In this mess, any prospect of establishing any sort of overall dominance seems further away than ever, thank heavens. Thirdly a great deal of our trade is with Europe. EU economic policies are protectionist. There is a tariff wall around the EU, designed to make it difficult for outsiders to gain access to the European market. If we left and because an outsider, it would become difficult and expensive to trade in the European market. The costs of this would very far outweigh the costs of our contributions to the EU budget, which we would save by leaving. Our economy is weak enough already. We probably can't afford to weaken it further.

‘A lot of politics is like stage magic. Misdirection is important’ Yep – it’s the US, Whitehall, the Transnationals – EVERYBODY (except the Rothschilds – only wing nuts are concerned with them) is a Bigger Threat than the EU.

I have this morning received the latest bulletin of what the EU is up to (so tread carefully when you ask me for evidence of why I think it is a dangerous and noxious organisation that should be broken up) and it seems that they themselves are surprisingly keen to generate ‘mythology’ and ‘hysteria’ against themselves.

Well, why else would German Interior Minister Wolfgang Schäub reaffirm Germany’s commitment to the common European Army on the BBC’s ‘Hard Talk’ helpfully explaining: “ But the United Kingdom, it's a pity but it's the truth, has never been in the lead of European integration. Germany has to be in the lead of European integration... the general direction is undisputed in Germany... No major party has ever tried to get support by a eurosceptic general direction."

It does not state here whether or not he then adopted a John Cleese Silly Walk and gabbled deliriously about not mentioning the war.

Also, Private Eye’s ‘Brussels Sprouts’ reports on the case of British student Andrew Symeou, who is fighting extradition to Greece, which it describes as a "test" for the use of the European Arrest Warrant to fast-track extradition without consideration or whether there is credible evidence.

All this Misdirection, honestly - what will these mischievous pranksters think of next!

To be serious Mr Davies – have you just gone into that area where British patriotism is regarded quite unconsciously as a Bad thing whose badness, BBC style, is simply assumed. I do not think it wretched or a ‘tactic’ to be patriotic. I see it as a positive good and the Independent Nation State, along with the stable Family Unit, as the most effective defence we have against totalitarianism.

I think it only correct to fully concede the part that other forces play in the Game (but why no mention of UN/UNESCO?) But I think it is seriously ill advised to seek to minimise the EU influence in comparison with them.

I’m afraid you’re not the first person to find me an “enigma”, because despite being almost completely cynical about all forms of power politics, I find myself as unable to see any “big picture”, or believe in any conspiracies, as I always found it impossible to respect the sort of crude Marxism that sees a “borge-wozzy” as the source of all the world’s evils. Perfectly ordinary power politics, human selfishness, cowardice, short-term selfishness untempered by any long-term vision, and stupidity, are quite sufficient to account for most of the world’s ills. It is not necessary to posit the existence of any sort of evil plot. I go along with Friar William of Occam; “do not multiply entities un-necessarily”.

The EU is certainly not an overtly totalitarian project by any reasonable standard. To briefly establish a few definitions, a Pluralist society has many centres of power, and outcomes are achieved by negotiating between them. An Authoritarian society emphasises the power of the state, and the citizen’s duty to obey rather than to attempt to influence the state. A Totalitarian system has only one centre of power. The EU has at least 28; 27 member states plus Brussels.

It may well be an overtly authoritarian project. It has little democratic legitimacy, and has been deeply influenced by the elitist products of the French Ecole Polytechnique who see democracy as one step removed from mob rule. But totalitarian? Hardly. Elements within the EU might want it to gain more and more power. This is natural. All political bodies seek more power, as a plant seeks sunshine. But they don’t have anything approaching totalitarian power yet, nor are they likely to gain it in the foreseeable future. For this we may be devoutly thankful.

If you want an example of a state that is at least approaching totalitarianism, you could do a lot worse than to look at the UK. We used to be a pluralist society. Political outcomes were once negotiated between the government, the City, the Confederation of British Industry, the Trades Unions, and a variety of citizens activist groups. Since about 1980, power has become more and more concentrated, until today only the government and the banks, working in tandem, have any real input to policy. Dissenters are allowed to object up to the point where their objection risks becoming effective, at which point they are defined as “subversives” or “terrorists”, placed under surveillance, and if necessarily put down with brutal physical force. It is safe for me to say that precisely because my dissent is ineffective. If there was any risk of a broad-based popular movement taking my words seriously and using them as a platform to oppose the government, I would be well advised to leave the country and log in from far abroad.

Our government has not delegated huge swathes of power to the EU, at least not outside the realms of legal fiction. It likes us all to believe it has delegated huge swathes of power to the EU, so that whenever it wants to do something especially outrageous, it does not have to take responsibility for it, but can claim it has “no choice”, because whatever they want to do is EU law. In short, the EU gives our own home-based government the best excuse ever to act without accountability. Naturally, they absolutely love this. It feeds their lust for power no end. I’m frankly amazed that so few people seem to have spotted what is going on.

If the EU ever tried to make our government do something it really did not want to, they’d soon find they couldn’t. The EU doesn’t have the power, or the resources, or any meaningful enforcement capacity. Huge swathes of power have most certainly not been delegated in any effective sense.

The demise of our fishing fleet? Our deepwater fishing fleet was doomed when we lost the cod wars of the 1970s to Iceland, which was nothing to do with the EU. Our inshore and middle-water fleets could be sacrificed to the Spaniards because places like Falmouth, Penzance, etc, simply do not wield enough money or enough votes to matter in national political calculations. I’m sorry. Our fishing fleet may have immense symbolic associations. It ties into our ideas of ourselves as a maritime nation, yo ho ho and all that. I’m allowed to be cynical about that, because I’ve been a professional small-boat sailor in my time. But the fact is, the UK fishing industry wasn’t big enough to matter.

By sacrificing our fishing fleet, Her Majesty’s Government was able to place the Spanish government in its debt. That was important, because a lot of politicking goes on inside the EU between member nations. If it was to prevent the old alliance of France and Germany running the EU to suit themselves, Her Majesty’s Government had to find allies within the EU. Spain and Italy were the obvious candidates. That is why we gave all our fish away to Spain. That is also why a Labour Prime Minister became such good friends with a massively corrupt Italian buffoon with some very suspect neo-fascist friends. It’s not conspiracy. It’s just ordinary power politics in action, as dirty and disgusting and venal as ever.

The corporations and the EU? Sometimes the EU works hand-in-glove with them, sometimes it extracts quite large concessions from them. I still think we are better inside than out, because outside the EU, we would be in no position to extract any concessions from the multinats at all.

Which are we more subservient to, the EU or the US? When the EU is able to station large numbers of troops on our soil permanently, install all sorts of spying and bugging stations, add a mixture of air, military and naval bases to suit, and drag us into an illegal war of aggression that is sold on the basis of lies and spin, and which at the time of the commencement of hostilities is opposed by almost 80% of the UK populace, and which generates some of the largest demonstrations of protest ever seen (which were of course ignored); which makes us a terrorist target, with all the damage to our liberties that results, and becomes a defining political issue for six years; when the EU is able to do all that, or anything even vaguely comparable, then I will admit our subservience to the EU matches our subservience to the USA.

But in the meantime, remember that both politics and stage magic rely very largely on misdirection. While we are all watching what is happening over here, we aren’t paying attention to what is happening over there. Political figures never, ever, tell us the truth about what they are doing in our name.

The problem with this line of thinking is that it is entirely backward looking. Yes, the EU is still less important in some areas than national governments, and yes, ultimately it relies upon national police and courts to enforce its laws. But if you look at the progress the EU has made since the formation of the European Coal and Steel Community and how willing national leaders, civil servants and courts are to enforce EU law, I think it would take a brave - or optimistic - person to think that the integration process cannot go much further.

The EU will - unless checked - become ever more important.

Leaving the EU is no panacea, but it would be an important step in the right direction.

So we finally made it away from the other thread (I was reluctant though). Maybe you, Vikki and I don't rush from one thread to another, which is why we are both in the horse and cart team- very glad to have you on board by the way- can almost hear the clipety-clop of those hooves now (what a replacement for rap!).

Must admit, think I'm turning into a dizzy rascal myself with all these threads, don't know which one to post on (ok, horrible joke)!

As a quick aside, I have just posted an excerpt from Screwtape on the 'A Couple of Quick Responses' thread. It's scary reading it. I keep imagining the demon Blairtape in my mind...Education! Education! Education!!

Oh, speaking of which, I highly recommend the 1898 exam for eleven year olds that I posted on the 'General Conversations on Waterloo Day' thread, if you haven't checked it out already. Don't know why I posted it there, I meant to do it on this one. Anyway, I just don't know how anyone can say education has improved after looking at it!

Anyway, I digress- as usual- I completely agree with you in your post regarding the EU- not much of a surprise there. I think Mr Davies makes a very good point here when he says:

" A lot of politics is like stage magic. Misdirection is important. If they can get us looking over at one side of the stage with a lot of fuss and flurry over there, they can pretty much ensure we won't notice the rather more important business that is taking place on the other side of the stage. "

However, I can't help feeling he is the one looking over at the wrong side of the stage, or at least not seeing what is going on behind the curtains. Actually, I should say only looking at 'one side of the stage' rather than the wrong side. If anything our EU membership is never, ever, even discussed, let alone hearing all the 'hysteria and mythology' surrounding it- I mean, when was the last time any of us ever heard the BBC question it? It's taboo. The implication being that our membership is so good that it shouldn't even come under discussion (Jon Snow is a prime example of this) Having said that, I think he (Mr Davies, not Jon Snow)does make some excellent points regarding our relationship to the US. My own feelings on it is that Britain was pushed into joining by America and since then we have become subservient to both. Unfortunately, this has left us like a small raft in a storm, being blown one way and another with absolutely no say in which direction we go in. The worst of both worlds....

We might follow America's foreign policy but it is an EU identity card that we'll all be forced to buy, and swear allegiance to, and hand our fishing industry to and...the list could go on....

Sorry, not really telling you anything you don't already know here...

Oh, Guy- the PhD would actually be on the Special Relationship, will elaborate tomorrow as I'm almost out of time...

Hello Mark – re: going back to Coach and Horses – put me down for that too. And for more railways, as well, and G Whitfield has provided excellent examples to suggest that they do not need to be run for profit.

I feel like an inmate in a Soviet Asylum when I read Mr Davies’ stuff (I am quite prepared to accept that I am promising material for such an institution anyway, Soviet or no) I imagine a doctor’s voice in an hypnotic trance memory ‘The EU – it isn’t what you think it is. It is all manufactured Hysteria, Mythology – it is the US, the US, the US. . .

I am perfectly aware of the situation vis a vis foreign policy, and I have found an example of my thinking on this from way back:

‘I agree with Jon Burgess - there must be a whole bunch of interconnected reasons why Britain is in Afghanistan and ALL of them are devious. The very fact of being bogged down and bleeding dry in an un-winnable but potentially eternal conflict in itself must be one of the motives. . . the very fact of the War in Afghanistan is a contributory factor in the brainwashing of young men into becoming anti-British terrorists on the mainland - pace Iraq. If Britain withdrew from both, tomorrow, we would be able to consolidate and build up our forces at home as well as remove any propaganda justification for terrorist acts on the mainland.

Just bear in mind - this Government loathes this country, it can't devolve enough power to the EU fast enough, so where is the patriotic motive for the Middle East conflicts?

Put simply - there isn't one.’

Posted by: Guy Reid-Brown | 12 June 2008 at 03:50 PM

But this in no way negates the fact that the EU is an overtly totalitarian project in and of itself, regardless of our ‘special relationship’ with the US, or the US’ perceived self interest (in my analysis, there is a singular self interest that both overrides and unites what people erroneously regard as EU and US self interest and manipulates both but that is a different matter - pecunia non olet ) Or the simple fact that there are still a couple of European countries who remain outside of the EU but continue to trade with it and are doing very well thank you and it is entirely reasonable for us to follow suit. How does it make us ‘almost certainly better in than out’ to have lost our fishing industry and to have had our agricultural self sufficiency destroyed? How can it be that Japan, also a small island nation but not affiliated to a Supra-national Political Federation to which it pays vast subsidies, isn’t a banana republic? Why were we lied to in 1975 that we were joining a Free trade group when the EU coup had been planned all along – yes, to be made to appear ‘inevitable’ after the event. Approximately 300 other questions immediately spring to mind.

But your argument is circular:

‘At least as a member of a "club" of 27 nations, we have some sort of negotiating position with the likes of Exxon-Mobil and IBM.’

But an essential part of the whole impetus behind the EU is that ‘the likes of Exxon-Mobil and IBM’ WANT the EU, and they want it to enlarge. The removal of borders, of independent nation states, the ‘freedom of movement’ that destroys regional identity and loyalties, all consolidates more power into the hands of the transnationals – that is what ‘transnational’ means. How can the EU ‘negotiate’ with transnationals when as a political entity it is serving their ends?

And that 27 used to be in single figures but it keeps on ‘enlarging’. If the EU is such a mythical threat why on earth is it imposing a second Irish Referendum on the Lisbon Treaty (single constitution) because the first one failed. What kind of a Paper Tiger is it that wants a unified police force, army, currency, flag, passport and so on and so forth?

When I read that withdrawal ‘would turn us into an utterly subservient banana republic in very short order’ that simply appears ironic. We cannot keep projecting Orwell/Huxley into the future. It has happened already and we have to deal with it as it is now because of our complacency in allowing it to happen.

You are an enigma Mr Davies – you show a grasp of the Big Picture up to a certain point and then always subvert it in favour of the perpetuation of the EU. O’Brien would be impressed.

"Interesting piece by Mr Davies. Any of the usual suspects able to refute it?"
(Posted by: Tony Dodd)

Please don't make me out to be saying the EU is a "good thing". I've made it very plain that I don't very much like it. But I also think that given the limited level of resources it commands, (okay, huge by personal standards, but tiny by comparison with the resources commanded by nation-states) and the extremely substantial question-marks that stand against its claims of legal supremacy, the EU really isn't all that important.

A lot of politics is like stage magic. Misdirection is important. If they can get us looking over at one side of the stage with a lot of fuss and flurry over there, they can pretty much ensure we won't notice the rather more important business that is taking place on the other side of the stage.

Superb image of Blair rising from the tomb, ready to preside over the Stockholm Programme. But it is not Blair on his own, unfortunately. Since World War One, the military emergencies triggering "States of Exception", or "States of Siege" - where governments suspend democracy in favour of martial law to quell civil unrest - have often given way to economic emergencies triggering the same.

The most strong-armed bit of EU law is Article 2 of the ECHR at subsection (2)(c) -this permits "Deprivation of life" when it results from the use of force which is no more than absolutely necessary "in action lawfully taken for the purpose of quelling a riot or insurrection". This Human Right, and the special suspension of it at para (c), dates from 1950.

For the UK, in compliance with EU Law, the Civil Contingencies Act 1994 has taken it further, in Part Two which deals with Emergencies. Section 19 defines an "Emergency" as (a) "an event or situation which threatens serious damage to human welfare ...", or (b) the same, but substituting "environment" for "human welfare", or (c) war/terrorism or other external security threat. "Damage to human welfare" is described in a list numbered (a) to (h), of which (e) is "disruption of a supply of money, food, water, energy, or fuel.". Section 22 then permits the deployment of the armed forces in a Section 19 situation, amongst other tools of quelling sedition, insurrection, etc. (these include "tribunals", which were called "courts of summary jurisdiction" in the almost identical part of the Emergency Powers Act 1920). When and whether Sections 19 and 22 merge with Article 2(2)(c) of the ECHR, depends on the definition of "riot or insurrection". When and if they do, there is a licence to kill. To kill in the name of the state - OR, in the name of someone who has taken over the state recently. Remember, all laws are double-edged, and can backfire.

These laws are nothing new - since 1850 France, Germany, and Italy have had more or less continuous provision in their constitutions for a "State of Exception" to be declared by the government. France has been the most frequent user of martial law provisions (since 1814); however the best-known example is the Weimar Constitution of 1919, at Article 48 - this was invoked some 250 times between 1919 and 1939.
Britain has a good record over the same period (say, 1820 to 1945), and only once resorted to martial law in 1920 (General Strike, Depression, etc.) in the Emergency Powers Act. The 1994 Act is not a pretty sight, however, and in places very like Article 48 of the Weimar Constitution.

In 1968, Germany's coalition (NB coalition) government overcame its nervousness and re-introduced State of Exception provisions, called now "State of Internal Necessity" ("innere Notstand" in German). France and Italy have always had such things in place, for use if needed. Of course a government must be able to calm riots (and then find out what is causing them). But these EU laws are Napoleonic in nature - we do things better over here, although we can be unjust and have been in the past, but we have learned from our mistakes. Or so I thought, but it is unsettling to see "the awful truth, which so many have hidden from themselves" that we are endorsing EU law over our own. We once had a Napoleon - Cromwell. He did not last long. But on the Continent, they make a permanent mark, against their own people.

I search in vain for the pro-EU arguments based honestly on the desire for the imposition of Socialist totalitarianism. This is very upsetting, because back in the 1930s/40s Fabian Socialist H G Wells was doing this with almost endearing honesty with titles such as 'The Open Conspiracy' and 'The New World Order' and UNESCO architect Julian Huxley was happily publishing stuff like the following:

'Not much remains to be said in conclusion, but what remains is important. It is that the task before Unesco is necessary, is opportune, and, in spite of all multiplicity of detail, is single.
That task is to help the emergence of a single world culture, with its own philosophy and background of ideas, and with its own broad purpose. This is opportune, since this is the first time in history that the scaffolding and the mechanisms for world unification have become available'

(from ‘UNESCO: Its purpose and Its Philosophy’by Julian Huxley, First Director-General of UNESCO
(Washington DC: Public Affairs Press, 1947)

Tom (1.38pm) - Are you saying that the BNP is pro-EU? There have been huge numbers of lies told about that party in recent weeks, but yours is among the most stupid.

Regarding UKIP, John Burgess: Peter Hitchens won't support any party until the Useless Tories have collapsed, and a new, genuinely conservative party has risen from their ashes. So goes his interesting theory anyway. Whether it will actually come about remains to be seen.

In today's real world, given that LibLabCon are all equally bad, and the Greens are in fact watermelons (Red on the inside), the only two significant options are UKIP and the BNP. UKIP had its chance in 2004, but wasted it on fraud and buffoonery, and hemorrhaged members and votes for five years until, as I predicted, it was given an extraordinary media boost starting a few weeks prior to the recent elections.

It was particularly interesting listening to Nick Griffin's victory speech in Manchester Town Hall, in which he stated that he would not just campaign for Britain's withdrawal, but he and his researchers would also be closely examining the vast financial frauds carried out within the EU, and the millions pocketed by various individuals in the many privatisations that have occurred in recent years. Given the notorious lax accounting, expenses and missing money in the EU (so bad that its auditors refuse to sign off the accounts) that should be music to everyone's ears.

This is to be contrasted with what little UKIP actually did from 2004 to 2009, other than commit fraud and make fools of themselves (Kilroy-Silk, the "women cleaning round the back of the fridge" comment). UKIP did absolutely nothing either to bring Britain closer to withdrawal, or to shed light upon the vast fraud the defines the EU (probably because they were in on it).

If there was ever any doubt that UKIP is a false flag operation designed to draw votes from the many people disgusted with EU membership (not to mention political correctness, mass immigration, etc) but do absolutely nothing to combat it, such doubt should have evaporated by now.

Finally, as to the railways, the UK is right now paying tens of millions to maintain and develop them. Unfortunately, the railways in question are situated in Eastern Europe.

The reference to a new law of "incitement to hatred on grounds of sexual orientation" reminded me of my time in the Arabian Gulf, where the direct translation of the law used by dictatorial royal families to imprison their political opponents is "incitement to hatred against the government". Perhaps it's not long until a Briton who criticises a homosexual finds himself in the same unhelpful predicament as a Saudi Arabian who criticises his royal family.

In fact, all of these "incitement to...." laws are a desecration of democracy, as they do not consider adults to be free-thinking individuals, capable of choosing their own course of action. If someone chooses to commit a criminal act (a genuine such act, as opposed to a speech- or thought-crime) then that is entirely his or her responsibility, and he or she is the only one who should be punished for it.

These "incitement to..." laws seek to take responsibility away from the perpetrator of an act, and put it onto whoever the state sees fit to imprison. This is a terrifying prospect. Indeed, even when there is no proven link between a statement and any criminal act committed by another person afterwards, the person who made the statement can *still* be imprisoned, even though there is no proof that his statement "incited" any "hatred" which led to a crime.

The whole thing smacks of totalitarianism, of seeking to reduce once-free adults to the status of children, arguing that they can't be held responsible for their actions if some big, mean, politically incorrect (but factually correct) man has told them a few truths about our society today. Indeed, children are (or at least were) treated with more intellectual respect: I recall on more than one occasion during my schooldays, a pupil who had been caught out complaining to his teacher that "X told me to do it!", to which the usual response was, "Would you jump off a cliff if X told you to?"

I posted my comment about the EU on the wrong thread - again! It's because I have keep reloading the page, so I switch between threads to make them 'active' so to speak. Anyway, time is fast running out for us. It cannot be stressed strongly enough or overstated. The Lisbon Treaty is almost upon us and instead of worrying about MP's expenses and the trivial pursuits in parliament (all a timely diversion), we should be marching to Westminster and staging a protest demanding that the despicable Treaty be torn up and burnt. This is Brown's crowning glory, to sell our country from under us. He clearly feels that this is the single most important act of high treason he has to carry out and nothing, absolutely nothing is going to get him out of Downing Street until he has done it.

We knew the Irish would be pestered into another referendum and this time they will probably say yes. But we haven't even been given one. I strongly feel, that somewhere in law, there must be provision to challenge the situation, after the Treaty is signed, on the basis that Brown has no mandate to govern and the recent elections, intimate that the people no longer have confidence in his government.

The EU want Britain. We are the jewel in the crown - a nation, an empire and commonwealth reduced to nothing more than a county, finally brought to heel. We mustn't sit back and let it happen.

When Britain first, at Heaven's command
Arose from out the azure main;
This was the charter of the land,
And guardian angels sang this strain:
"Rule, Britannia! rule the waves:
"Britons never will be slaves."

The nations, not so blest as thee,
Must, in their turns, to tyrants fall;
While thou shalt flourish great and free,
The dread and envy of them all.
"Rule, Britannia! rule the waves:
"Britons never will be slaves."................

As so often, G Whitfield is right, Williamson. Essential services dont need to make a profit. Why are you so obsessed with profit? Oh I forgot, it's because you're a rabid Thatcherite.

I'm sick of hearing about profits and costs. All we get is excitable coverage of minor fluctuations in currencies or the hallowed share values, with barely a word about industrial production or the balance of payments.

It's astonishing, given that the reputation of neo-liberal economics should be discredited at the present time.

It is high time to entitle each divorcing spouse to one per cent of the other's estate for each year of marriage, up to fifty per cent, and to disentitle the petitioning spouse unless fault be proved.

It is high time to entitle any marrying couple to register their marriage as bound by the law prior to 1969 as regards grounds and procedures for divorce, and to enable any religious organisation to specify that any marriage which it conducts shall be so bound, requiring it to counsel couples accordingly.

And it is high time to legislate that the Church of England be such a body unless the General Synod specifically resolve the contrary by a two-thirds majority in all three Houses, and to do something similar for the Methodist and United Reformed Churches, which also exist pursuant to Acts of Parliament; I will have to check the exact legislation relating to the restoration of the Catholic hierarchy, but if something similar can be done, then it must be done.

Here’s a little more terrible heresy for you. The hysteria about our so-called “subservience” to the EU (which I have already made amply plain has very little reality in it) is deeply damaging, because it obscures the area where we really are subservient. It poisons the political discourse by diverting people’s attention away from reality.

Of course, I mean the Special Relationship. You know, the one which everyone in Whitehall talks about and no-one in Washington has heard of?

Its origins were in the Suez fiasco, which made it very plain that we could no longer pursue an independent great Power policy internationally without the agreement of the Americans. Since then, we have never really tried to go it alone. The last feeble kick of UK independence was when Harold Wilson refused demands to openly commit UK forces to the shambles in Vietnam.

Acting as America’s unquestioning ally can be very expensive. So far the Iraq war has cost us about £12 billion, and over 180 of our brave servicemen. It would be nice if we still had the money, because every penny will be needed to rebuild the economy. The loss of young lives in a war based on a lie is incalculable and inexcusable.

However, while a more independent UK foreign policy might be a good idea, there will be some practical difficulties in implementing it. US foreign policy is not made unanimously. While the State Department may see us as comparatively unimportant, and see Germany as the lead nation in Europe, to the US military and security establishment, we are very important indeed.

We are US theatre Headquarters for the European theatre. Or as George Orwell prophetically put it, we are Oceania’s “Airstrip One”. It goes back to the Cold War with the Soviets, which still shaped the world we live in today. The very large bases in Germany and other European countries were expendable. Many of them were expected to be over-run by the Red Army. They were simply holding points for troops and equipment. They would be re-supplied by convoy from the USA, staging via the UK.

The bases in the UK were far more important. The most important US air base in the UK is probably Fairford, one of a very few bases world-wide equipped to handle the B-2 stealth bomber. But more important are the bunkers near Beaconsfield and High Wycombe, the Menwith Hill station in Yorkshire, (which goes down a good nine storeys below ground level) and a few others. They contain the US European theatre command and control infrastructure, intelligence and security assets; miles of computers, cables, wave-guides, fibre-optics and satellite links. These strategic assets are not expendable. They are virtually impossible to move. They are deeply dug in, would be incredibly expensive to re-site, and besides, what other European country would accept them?

So we are stuck with them. It is therefore very important to the USA to have a government in the UK which is safely pro-American, even to the extent of putting US interests before its own. A UK government which showed signs of dangerous independence would come under the most enormous pressure. This could take many forms; diplomatic, (withdrawal of US support for UK interests worldwide?), financial (a run on the pound?), intelligence (refusal to share vital information?) and last but not least direct personal pressure on members of the UK government.

American politics is played to much rougher rules than in the UK. When J. Edgar Hoover ran the FBI in the US, his behaviour was often outrageous. A succession of Presidents and other politicians of both parties put up with him because he had files on all of them, and did not hesitate to threaten to use them; all their sexual peccadillos, dodgy financial dealings, and covered-up crimes. Hoover is long gone, of course, but his successors are still very much in post. What information do US secret services have on our leading politicians in the UK today, and what pressures they are able to bring as a result?

The extent of UK subservience to US security and military policy is truly breathtaking. Even our famous “independent nuclear deterrent” comes under US command. The reality is that the US has gained four very expensive Trident boats, which are under their command, but which they do not have to pay for.

It’s all very well to say that Anthony Lynton Blair should have resisted US demands to drag us into Iraq. The fact is that he had very little choice in the matter. If he had said firmly “no, this war is being sold on the basis of lies and deception, and Her Majesty’s Government will have no part of it”, if Blair had shown any such signs of dangerous independence, his position, both politically and personally, would have rapidly been made very unpleasant indeed. He acted as he did because he had no choice. I still wish the little swine did not look quite so pleased with himself about it, though.

But anyway, coming back to the EU, all this hysteria and mythology about our “subservience”; the EU is no more than a legal fiction, and not a very convincing fiction at that. One could point out that this legal fiction has attained currency because various powerful groups have vested interests in its not being exposed. A constitutional lawyer might point to the ruling by the German Supreme Court that German law, not EU law, should enjoy supremacy in Germany. Or they might emphasise the EU principle of “subsidiarity”, which states that all EU law should be interpreted by national governments to take account of local conditions. Or they might point out that the EU is a paper tiger without the resources to become any sort of effective tyranny.

But anti-EU hysteria serves a very real purpose, which is why it is constantly pumped up. It obscures the far more important areas where we really are subservient. That is a very bad thing. I am honestly not sure if an independent UK foreign policy is still a possibility, but let us at least attempt to view the issues in terms of reality, not overheated delusion.

Michael Williamson extends the rail argument thus: "Why shouldn't the railways make a profit? It beats me. Every other business (and it is a business, only those who use it insist on calling it a service) is expected to make a profit or go bankrupt, why should the railways be so different?

But why should the railways be expected to make a profit?
Do we ask the Police to make a profit (no, but they do their best anyway with speed cameras).
Do we require the Army, RAF and RN to make money every time they act in our interests?
Should the fire Brigade be axed due to its consistent loss making?

Nay, nay and thrice nay. So why should the railways be any different?

Of course, now that they are in private clutches, they will be put under pressure to make money for someone, somewhere. But this is part of the problem - they should never have been privatised, in the same way as any other public service should never be privatised.

If you can't see the fundamental difference between the railways and Glaxo industries, for instance, then there is no point in continuing this debate.

Post a comment

Comments are moderated, and will not appear on this weblog until the moderator has approved them. They must not exceed 500 words. Web links cannot be accepted, and may mean your whole comment is not published.